Stressors and Subjective Cognition in Daily Life: Tests of Physical Activity and Age as Moderators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Growing research indicates that daily stress is associated with poorer same-day cognitive performance, for example, memory and attention. However, it is unclear whether this relationship holds across diverse ages and engagement in physical activity (PA), or whether these factors might buffer the relationship between daily stress and subjective cognitive function. METHODS: Ecological momentary assessment data were collected from adults aged 25 to 88 years across British Columbia, Canada. For 14 days, participants ( N = 204) wore a triaxial physical activity monitor, reported stressor occurrence in mobile surveys four times per day, and rated their subjective attention and memory at the end of each day. RESULTS: Multilevel models evaluated daily stressor occurrence as a predictor of subjective attention and memory, with same-day PA engagement and age as moderators. Subjective attention and memory were lower on days when a stressor had occurred, compared to stressor-free days. Neither PA nor age moderated the within-person associations of daily stressors with subjective cognition. CONCLUSION: The lack of stress-buffering effects for same-day PA and age raises questions about the contexts in which PA promotes cognitive functioning and about age-related processes underlying stress and cognition. Future work could examine the mechanisms that might explain the link between daily stress and cognition function, as well as the associations of different intensity and forms of physical activity on stress across age groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".